WTC-7 Mysteries FINALLY Solved.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Your debunk attempt of 911 has all ready been debunked

That won't fly because what you just posted is not true at all. A&E is not credible. Now, let's take another example of what I am talking about.

It is apparent in the following A&E message that A&E is not aware that most of the space inside buildings is occupied by air. As a building collapses, where is all of that air going to go? Perhaps I need to explain to the folks at A&E something about compressed air.

AE 911 Truth KEY EVIDENCE

* Isolated explosive ejections 20 to 60 stories below the “crush zone,”

Maybe I should send A&E this photo and have them explain to me what is causing the ejection of dust plumes.

No Explosives Used

a reply to: skyeagle409

This video is the dagger that shows WTC's demise to be identical to controlled demolition's



Wait there is more




If it looks like a snake , slithers like a snake , hisses like a snake its a F ING SNAKE!

Occams Razor

try using it !

edit to add : The east penthouse fell to the 47th floor as is evidenced by the light coming through a few windows on the 47th floor. It is incidental to the implosion and It does not alter the fact that WTC 7 imploded and fell at free fall acceleration for about 100 feet. That is proof positive that all the supporting structure on 7 or 8 floors was removed with explosives.

a reply to: DarthFazer

That won't work because there is no sound to your videos. I hope that A&E didn't think that the WTC buildings would have fallen skyward.

Now, let's do it right.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Your second video proves that WTC7 did not fall at free fall speed. In fact, in the final seconds of its collapse, WTC7 tilted toward the south, which is where debris from the collapse of WTC1 punched out that massive hole on its south facade.

Now, let's take another look at another WTC7 video.

a reply to: skyeagle409

WRONG AGAIN

NIST and the "no sound" excuse Debunked once again

NIST Lies EXPOSED: WTC-7 FOIA Footage Captures Blast Sound Seconds BEFORE "Collapse"




9/11: Sound Evidence for WTC 7 Explosions and NIST Cover Up

boom boom boom boom boom @ 03:38




I think I know an explosion when I hear it - Greg Bartmer NYFD

a reply to: DarthFazer

You videos have been debunked by the fact that no demo explosions were heard on video and seismic data did not depict demo explosions. The sound of explosions is not evidence of demo explosions. Case in point.

Electrical Fire Hurts 6 at Trade Center

Published: July 24, 1992
An air-conditioning transformer five stories below the World Trade Center caught fire after an explosion last night, the authorities said. Six people were injured, none of them seriously, but the 110-story twin towers did not have to be evacuated, the authorities said.

www.nytimes.com...


Manhole Explosions Set Cars On Fire In SoHo

December 29, 2012 4:22 PM

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — Several cars were ablaze on Prince Street in SoHo Saturday afternoon, after a series of explosions in manholes below.


Predicting the Next Deadly Manhole Explosion

Every so often in New York City, a disk of cast iron weighing up to 300 pounds will burst out of the street and fly as high as several stories before clattering back to the blacktop. Flames, smoke or both may issue from the breach, as if somebody had pulled hell’s own pop-top

Manhole explosions aren’t just spectacular; they’re dangerous. As one firefighter observed after a manhole exploded near Times Square in May: “It’s not Disneyland, people. Get the hell out of the way.”

www.wired.com...

There were over 2000 explosions in New York City in 2014 and over 1000 explosions in New York City so far in 2015. There were no demo explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed which is proven in videos and in the seismic data.

a reply to: DarthFazer

I think I know an explosion when I hear it - Greg Bartmer NYFD

Prove that the explosion was the result of explosives and explain why there is no evidence of demo explosions on this seismic data chart.

Seismic Data Chart

a reply to: skyeagle409

Did you even watch the videos ?

The sound in the audio a few seconds before the building collapsed is consistent with a series of demos going off in sequence. It was a not random explosions and random flatulence but deep boom's in sequence ! That is as good as it gets.

Nano-thermite can be used when silence is necessary to an operation and silent incendiaries. That can explain why it is hard to hear the demotions but they are clearly audible in the videos i posted. Now you can keep playing coy and ignorant to the fact it does not matter. NIST is dishonest and disingenuous and not forthright with the data. Because they wanted to control the information to fit in to the propaganda aspect of it. When you separate the wheat from the chaff it is more than obvious it was a controlled demolition. We can prove this to you time and time again until you are blue in the face and you will still refute it because you have your mind made up. You are wrong , it's simple.


www1.ae911truth.org...

Furthermore, sounds strongly suggesting explosions can indeed be heard in numerous videos of the towers' destruction, including these videos of WTC 1 and WTC 2 obtained via a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed against NIST by the International Center for 9/11 Studies. Similar sounds can be heard in videos of the destruction of WTC 7, such as this one, which has been analyzed by physics instructor David Chandler. These new videos of the Towers corroborate the many eyewitness reports describing loud pops and other explosive noises at the onset of the destruction. These reports were also obtained through an FOIA lawsuit, their release having been denied by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey when first requested by the New York Times.

What else is NIST hiding ?

would you like condiments with that crow ?

a reply to: skyeagle409

And again you are incredibly incorrect

Dr. Andre Rousseau details why seismic readings taken during the events of 9/11, and that above-surface collisions (the planes) and the ensuing collapses cannot account for the seismic evidence, as suggested by those who initially reviewed it.

www.journalof911studies.com...

I hear Franks Red Hot is really good with Crow

Eat hearty

a reply to: DarthFazer

Did you even watch the videos ?

Yes I did. Now, how many people are going to stand in public with a detonator and announce that he is about to blow up WTC7 on video? It was evident in your video that the guy at time line 5:40 is lying.

Similar sounds can be heard in videos of the destruction of WTC 7, such as this one, which has been analyzed by physics instructor David Chandler.

As mentioned before, the sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible because explosions in New York City are common.

Nano-thermite can be used when silence is necessary to an operation and silent incendiaries.

That is false because the nano-thermite theory was fabricated and has been used to discredit the Truth Movement. This photo is truther claim that thermite was used to bring down the WTC buildings.

Cut Steel Beam

Now, let's take a look at the rest of the story on how that cut was made.

Worker Cutting Steel Beam

a reply to: DarthFazer

And again you are incredibly incorrect

I am right on the money and have the backing of demolition experts.

Dr. Andre Rousseau details why seismic readings taken during the events of 9/11, and that above-surface collisions (the planes) and the ensuing collapses cannot account for the seismic evidence, as suggested by those who initially reviewed it.

Let's hear it from a company that was operating seismic monitors at that time.

9/11 Seismic Recordings

Brent Blanchard devotes section 4 of his paper to the issue of seismic recordings on 9/11. Blanchard is Senior Editor of ImplosionWorld, a website which posts details of explosive demolitions, and also Director of Field Operations at Protec Documentation Services, Inc. Protec works in the field of vibration monitoring and structure inspection, a key service to both the construction and demolition industries.

Vibration monitoring performed by independent experts has long been considered crucial for companies carrying out explosive demolition, because owners of nearby buildings are keen to sue if any cracks or other structural damage appears.

The field seismographs used by Protec and others provide the key scientific evidence for disturbances that may have caused damage, and there were a number of such seismographs operated by Protec on 9/11 in the vicinity of Ground Zero, for monitoring construction sites. Blanchard tells us that data from these machines, and seismographs operated elsewhere, all confirm single vibration events recording the collapse.

None of them record the tell-tale 'spikes' that would indicate explosive detonations prior to collapse.

In his words:
This evidence makes a compelling argument against explosive demolition. The laws of physics dictate that any detonation powerful enough to defeat steel columns would have transferred excess energy through those same columns into the ground, and would certainly have been detected by at least one of the monitors that were sensitive enough to record the structural collapses.

However, a detailed analysis of all available data reveals no presence of any unusual or abnormal vibration events.

www.jnani.org...

And:

August 8, 2006: No Explosives Used in WTC Collapse, Says Demolition Industry Leader

Brent Blanchard, a leading professional and writer in the controlled demolition industry, publishes a 12-page report that says it refutes claims that the World Trade Center was destroyed with explosives.

www.historycommons.org...

Fire, Not Extra Explosives, Doomed Buildings, Expert Says

A New Mexico explosives expert says he now believes there were no explosives in the World Trade Center towers, contrary to comments he made the day of the Sept. 11 terrorist attack.

"Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail," said Van Romero, a vice president at the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology.

911research.wtc7.net...

a reply to: skyeagle409

Yes I did. Now, how many people are going to stand in public with a detonator and announce that he is about to blow up WTC7 on video? It was evident in your video that the guy at time line 5:40 is lying.

It's not the people on the ground it's the media having knowledge before hand.

Do you have some form of ADD ? Sorry had to ask.

As mentioned before, the sound of explosions is not evidence that explosives were responsible because explosions in New York City are common.

You are running in circles. First you say there is no audio , then I posted the audio. Then it is not evidence.

So basically for example if there is a murder and several gun shots are heard that night you can attribute the gun fire to random drive by shootings and refute there was even a murder by your logic.

That is false because the nano-thermite theory was fabricated and has been used to discredit the Truth Movement.

Nano-thermite is real silly. Earth to skyeagle409 are you there ?

en.wikipedia.org...

Experiments with nanothermite




This is like when i had to explain to my daughter how Santa was really me and she argued how could I get down the chimney if I was really Santa. Mind you while not having a chimney.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Nano-thermite is real silly. Earth to skyeagle409 are you there ?

Sorry, but your video does not fly. It took 1500 pounds of thermite just to melt two legs of a simple tower and 1/2 tons of thermite was unable to burn a vehicle in half.

originally posted by: DarthFazer

originally posted by: drommelsboef
The twin towers did not fall with g that's true, the North tower has been measured to fall with about (2/3)g in the beginning.

Oh so instead of disproving A&E's scientfic findings you attack a single person's character in the org with unfounded claims. And if it were true "and Korg just illustrated that it is not" how does that take away from the work of over 1000 architects and engineers ?

Your red herring fallacy is invalid

This has been measured by a lot of people, OneWhiteEye, femr2 at the physforums and the911forum, I also contributed a little bit to those measurements (about the same method as my old video www.youtube.com...) , but if you read my other posts, you will see that I'm not at the side of the official theory. But I hate to use nonsense information. If something is wrong then it is wrong.

a reply to: drommelsboef

Let me add another.

AE 911 Truth KEY EVIDENCE

* Evidence of thermite incendiaries on steel beams,

Photo 1: A&E Evidence That Thermite Cut Steel Beams

Photo 2: A&E Evidence That Thermite Cut Steel Beams

Now, for the rest of the story how those steel beams were cut. Fast-forward to time line 1:20 in the following video.

a reply to: DarthFazer

This is like when i had to explain to my daughter how Santa was really me and she argued how could I get down the chimney if I was really Santa. Mind you while not having a chimney.

That is on par with silent and invisible demo detonations in the WTC videos as the buildings collapsed.

a reply to: DarthFazer

Your description is consistent with explosives being detonated inside WTC

"Explodine outward"

In this video, do you see dust plumes and debris laterally blown away from these buildings during a demolition operation that doesn't require the use explosives? Yes or no.

originally posted by: drommelsboef

originally posted by: DarthFazer

originally posted by: drommelsboef
The twin towers did not fall with g that's true, the North tower has been measured to fall with about (2/3)g in the beginning.

Oh so instead of disproving A&E's scientfic findings you attack a single person's character in the org with unfounded claims. And if it were true "and Korg just illustrated that it is not" how does that take away from the work of over 1000 architects and engineers ?

Your red herring fallacy is invalid

This has been measured by a lot of people, OneWhiteEye, femr2 at the physforums and the911forum, I also contributed a little bit to those measurements (about the same method as my old video www.youtube.com...) , but if you read my other posts, you will see that I'm not at the side of the official theory. But I hate to use nonsense information. If something is wrong then it is wrong.

"Nonsense information"

Please elaborate

I think the term you mean is misinformation, but I digress.

a reply to: skyeagle409

Again you keep regurgitating the same contrived tripe. I feel like Bill Murray in ground hog day.

Can you show me one example of a steel frame building collapsing from "fire" without resistance in its own foot print.

Just one , I double dog dare ya !

You can't and won't because it's impossible

originally posted by: skyeagle409
a reply to: DarthFazer

Nano-thermite is real silly. Earth to skyeagle409 are you there ?

Sorry, but your video does not fly. It took 1500 pounds of thermite just to melt two legs of a simple tower and 1/2 tons of thermite was unable to burn a vehicle in half.

Honestly, this is starting to get pretty tedious. You jump from thread to thread posting this garbage from NatGeo, until someone posts the Jonathan Cole video which indisputably shows what absolute morons NatGeo and Mythbusters are, and you disappear only to post the same rubbish on another thread. Why do you obstinately refuse to admit that you (and they) are wrong?